Conference of Parties to the International Convention against Doping in Sport. Fourth Session Paris, UNESCO Headquarters Room XI September 2013

Transcription

1 Conference of Parties to the International Convention against Doping in Sport Fourth Session Paris, UNESCO Headquarters Room XI September 2013 Distribution: ICDS//INF.1/Rev.2 2 May 2013 Original: French Item 7.1 of the agenda Reports of States Parties on measures taken by them for the purpose of complying with the International Convention against Doping in Sport Background: It is a requirement under Article 31 of the International Convention against Doping in Sport (hereinafter referred to as the Convention ) that all States Parties shall forward every two years to the Conference of Parties through the Secretariat, in one of the official languages of UNESCO, all relevant information concerning measures taken by them for the purpose of complying with the provisions of this Convention. The Secretariat has developed the Anti-Doping Logic system, which consists of an online questionnaire and analysis software, to collect data from all States Parties on the measures they have taken to implement the Convention. This document presents the results generated by the Anti-Doping Logic system based on the information provided by States Parties for the biennium. National reports of States Parties are available for consultation in ADLogic. This document is for information and indicative purposes only.

2 ICDS//INF.1 OF WORLD MONITORING OF COMPLIANCE OF STATES PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION INTRODUCTION 1. States Parties compliance with the articles of the International Convention against Doping in Sport (2005) is monitored every two years (the Convention was the first of its kind to emphasize, among other objectives, regular and comparable monitoring among States Parties). 2. UNESCO invites governments to provide a report on all the measures they have taken to comply with the provisions of the Convention (including the design of anti-doping programmes). This is carried out electronically using a computer programme specially designed to monitor the Convention: Anti-Doping Logic (ADLOGIC). 3. This document summarizes the results of the questionnaire sent to all States Parties under the terms of Article 31 of the Convention. In this fourth series, in preparation for the Fourth Session of the Conference of States Parties (19-20 September 2013, Paris), 105 States Parties have responded favourably using ADLOGIC. 1 The questionnaire has 28 questions and 23 subquestions that reflect the themes of the Convention, notably national anti-doping activities, international cooperation, education and training, and research. 4. At the global level, the level of compliance with the Convention remains fairly high among the 105 States Parties (67% compliance under ADLogic, compared with 47% at the Third Session of the Conference of States Parties in 2011). Half of States parties are two thirds of the way towards 100% compliance with the Convention) Number of countries to have completed the ADLOGIC questionnaire by July 2013 (processing of ADLogic data for the drafting of this report). Median full compliance across all monitoring questions stands at 68%.

3 ICDS//INF.1 page 2 Figure 1a: Geographical distribution of States Parties with 67% compliance Group Vb 5% Group Va 10% Group I 30% Group IV 22% Group III 15% Group II 18% Note: Geographical distribution of the 60 States parties with over 67% average compliance with the articles of the Convention (processing of ADLogic data as of July 2013). Figure 2b: Percentage compliance by group of States Parties Figure 1b. Number of compliant countries by region Groups Ratio Group I 18/27 (67%) Group II 11/25 (44%) Group III 9/32 (28%) Group IV 13/37 (35%) Group V (a) 6/38 (15%) Group V (b) 3/15 (20%) Total 60/174 Note: Ratio by geographical group of the 60 States Parties with over 67% average compliance with the articles of the Convention. 5. Figure 3 shows the geographical distribution of the various levels of compliance with the Convention. Ten States Parties have achieved 90% compliance or above with the Convention, including Austria, Bahrain and France that comply 100% with all articles of the Convention. At the other extreme, the group of States Parties with much lower levels of full compliance is very geographically and economically diverse. The 10 States Parties that are lagging the furthest behind in terms of the Convention include, for instance, Andorra, Cameroon, Indonesia, Mali, Peru, Guyana and Togo (as well as several small island developing states (SIDS), such as the Maldives, Federated States of Micronesia and Vanuatu).

4 ICDS//INF.1 page 3 Figure 3: World monitoring of level of compliance with the Convention among States Parties Level of compliance with the Convention: Data missing Less than 50% 50%-74% 75%-89% 90% or more The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. Final boundary between the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan has not yet been determined. Final status of the Abyei region has not yet been determined. Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the parties. Data for China only include mainland China. Note: Figures determined by ADLOGIC based on replies to questions. 105 States completed the questionnaire, including 5 that gave incomplete responses. NATIONAL ACTIVITIES TO STRENGTHEN ANTI-DOPING 6. States Parties to the Convention are responsible for implementing the Convention through national activities that aim to promote the prevention of and the fight against doping in sport, with a view to its elimination (Article 1). 7. At the national level, this is reflected in the introduction of a legal framework to restrict the availability and use of prohibited substances and methods in sport. While the Convention gives governments some freedom to apply the Convention, using legislative, regulatory, political or administrative measures, States Parties mainly use legislative and regulatory changes (Figure 4).

5 Nombre total de pays ICDS//INF.1 page 4 Figure 4: States Parties mainly use changes to legislation and regulations Total number of countries Adoption Enacted d'un Enacted Élaboration specific de specific législation antidoping legislation antidopage anti-doping réglementation antidopage legislation spécifique spécifique 23 Élaboration Developed de politiques specific antidoping pratiques policies et de and administratives administrative antidopage practices spécifiques 13 Mesures Actions en cours - Modification Amended existing de la non currently encore législation legislation ou de or la pleinement underway, mises but réglementation regulations en in yet to be fully related fields (such en œuvre vigueur dans des implemented as medication or pharmaceuticals) domaines apparentés (tels que les médicaments ou les produits pharmaceutiques) Autres Other Do Ne not sait know pas Note: 105 States Parties replied to question Q1. Describe the principal measure taken to abide by the obligations contained in the Convention. 8. The high international level of athletes (in States Parties) is a determining factor in deciding which legal measure is appropriate to protect them from doping substances and methods. Figure 5 shows that most States Parties in Group I have adopted laws to enact anti-doping measures (11 States parties) or policies and administrative practices to this end (8 States Parties). Using antidoping regulations is a priority in Groups III, IV and Va. Figure 5: Developing regulations is significant in all groups except Group I. Note: 105 States Parties replied to question Q1. Describe the principal measure taken to abide by the obligations contained in the Convention. 9. In terms of Article 8 of Convention on measures to restrict the availability and use of prohibited substances and methods in sport, 62 States Parties have adopted measures that are mostly considerable or significant ( extensively or substantially ) out of the 104 States Parties that replied to this question (Question 2). In 15 States Parties, no measure has yet been introduced to restrict

6 ICDS//INF.1 page 5 substances and methods prohibited by the Convention. This involves all regional groups, and mainly Group Va (6 out of 15 States Parties). 10. A considerable number of measures have been taken to combat trafficking in prohibited substances and methods in many States Parties (Figure 6). However, there are 20 States Parties that have not yet introduced appropriate measures to restrict such flows. Figure 6: Measures taken to combat trafficking in prohibited substances and methods. Measures adopted to prevent trafficking in prohibited substances and methods: Data missing Considerable Partial Not yet Do not know The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. Final boundary between the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan has not yet been determined. Final status of the Abyei region has not yet been determined. Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the parties. Data for China only include mainland China. Note: 102 States Parties replied to Question 3: To what extent have measures been adopted to prevent the trafficking of prohibited substances and methods, as set forth in the Prohibited List (Annex I of the Convention), to athletes? 11. One essential aspect of achieving the Convention s anti-doping objectives is international cooperation. Six articles of the Convention (articles 13 to 18) describe specific measures required to promote synergy among States Parties. Going beyond the jurisdiction of States Parties, the Convention requires States Parties to encourage cooperation among anti-doping organizations, public authorities and sporting organizations. This cooperation begins with coordination and support for the anti-doping activities of the World Anti-Doping Agency and national anti-doping organizations, so that anti-doping efforts among anti-doping organizations are carried out in accordance with the Code.

7 ICDS//INF.1 page In terms of international cooperation, the ADLOGIC questionnaire examines two main aspects of the Convention: cooperation among organizations and cooperation for anti-doping checks. As far as the first issue is concerned, Figure 7 shows that States Parties that have replied to the questionnaire generally believe their level of cooperation to be fairly or very high ( substantial or extensive ). Over 90% of States Parties in all groups except Groups IV and Va consider themselves to be sufficiently cooperative in anti-doping under the terms of Article 16. In Groups IV and Va, cooperation remains partial for 20% of States Parties. Figure 7: Level of international cooperation in States Parties 100% 90% 4 80% 8 4 Percentage of countries by group 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% % % 0% Group I Group II Group III Group IV Group Va Group Vb None as of yet Partial Substantial Extensive Note: The number of States Parties is shown in each bar. 102 States Parties replied to Question 13: What level of cooperation exists between your public authorities, anti-doping and sports organizations and their international counterparts? 13. As for cooperation activities, States Parties use a variety of concrete mechanisms to carry out anti-doping work. For instance, only 48 States Parties of the 102 that have completed the questionnaire (Question 17) had agreements among States Parties to facilitate reciprocal antidoping tests. In 25 States Parties, similar agreements are being negotiated, while 24 States Parties already have a limited agreement. 14. Cooperation among States Parties appears more robust when it comes to recognizing the antidoping test results and procedures of other anti-doping organizations that comply with the World Anti-Doping Code. This applies to 100 of the 102 States Parties that replied to the question (18). Almost all States Parties agree to follow-up sanctions imposed by these other organizations (Figure 8).

8 ICDS//INF.1 page 7 Figure 8: Anti-doping measures and sanctions from other organizations are recognized in almost all States Parties. Recognize doping control procedures and results management methods of other anti-doping organizations Apply sanctions imposed by other anti-doping organizations Yes Yes, to a lesser extent No Not known Total number of countries Note: Replies to questions 18 - Do your public authorities or anti-doping organizations recognize the doping control procedures and test results of other anti-doping organizations if they are undertaken in a manner consistent with the World Anti-Doping Code? and 18.1 Do your public authorities or anti-doping organizations enforce the sanctions applied by other anti-doping organizations which are consistent with the World Anti-Doping Code? 15. In addition, most States Parties are open to the intervention of other anti-doping organizations or the World Anti-Doping Agency when it comes to testing their athletes, and have established an immigration arrangement for the staff of these organizations. The results show that 8% of States Parties have imposed restrictions on the entry and movement of authorized staff of the World Anti- Doping Agency or other anti-doping organizations. 16. The third theme of the Convention focuses on States Parties responsibilities in terms of developing and implementing anti-doping education and training. This obligation concerns not only high-level athletes but also the wider sporting community. 17. Most high-level athletes are provided with education or training on doping. Figure 9 shows that States Parties fulfil their responsibility to educate all (48% of States Parties) or almost all (41% of States Parties) their athletes about doping. This commitment is usually carried out annually (in 70% of States Parties see Figure 10) or occasionally (in 27% of States Parties). Figure 9: The vast majority of high-level international athletes are provided with doping education programmes. Note: 102 States Parties replied to Question 20: What proportion of international-level athletes receive education and training programmes about doping?

9 ICDS//INF.1 page 8 Figure 10: Anti-doping training happens annually in 70% of States Parties. Note: 101 States Parties replied to Question 20.2: How often do international-level athletes receive anti-doping education and training? 18. The Convention requires States Parties to offer up-to-date training topics specifically targeting high-level athletes, particularly covering the following four aspects: (a) (b) (c) (d) doping test procedures; rights and responsibilities of athletes in terms of anti-doping; list of prohibited substances and methods, as well as therapeutic use exemptions; and food supplements. 19. Figure 11 shows the various subjects covered by training for high-level athletes. Most States Parties cover the essential topics of the Convention, such as those mentioned above, with slightly weaker coverage on the risks of food supplements. Only 60 of the 101 States Parties to have replied to the question included this subject that is nonetheless essential for athletes.

10 ICDS//INF.1 page 9 Figure 11: Education for high-level athletes covers many doping topics. Note: 101 States Parties replied to Question 20.1 What is the focus of these education and training programmes? (Multiple responses are permitted) 20. The ADLOGIC questionnaire also highlights the educational responsibility that States Parties have to the rest of the sporting community, particularly national high-level athletes, sportsmen and sportswomen in the general population and staff in charge of athletes. Overall, States Parties ensure that almost all high-level international athletes are educated on doping, but only address a smaller proportion of other national athletes and those among the general public. Only 8 States Parties offer doping training or education programmes to the entire sporting population. As for people who work closely with athletes, 65 out of 102 States Parties (so almost two thirds) organize training for all, or nearly all, of such people. Figure 12: -level international athletes are the priority target for education and training programmes. Proportion of athletes to have received anti-doping education or training All Most Some None Unknown -level international athletes National athletes Other sportsmen/women Trainers and coaches (No. of States Parties) Note: 102 States Parties replied to Questions 20, 21, 22, and 23 on the proportion of athletes and staff with access to doping education or training. For instance: 42 countries replied that almost all high-level international athletes received anti-doping training or education.

11 ICDS//INF.1 page One of the main objectives of the Convention is to strengthen the capacities of anti-doping efforts, by means of international cooperation, as well as research into the effects of doping. Research is focused on many aspects of the doping issue, and in particular: (a) (b) (c) prevention, detection methods, behavioural and social aspects, and the health consequences of doping; ways and means of devising scientifically-based physiological and psychological training programmes respectful of the integrity of the person; the use of all emerging substances and methods resulting from scientific developments." (International Convention against Doping in Sport, Article 24); 22. Research efforts remain on a small scale compared with other anti-doping activities in most States Parties. Only 60 States Parties undertake or support anti-doping research, and 40 States Parties have not yet introduced this important activity under the terms of the Convention. Among the States Parties that undertake research, the focus is on doping prevention and the behavioural and social aspects of doping (Figure 13). Figure 13: Doping prevention is an important aspect of research in two thirds of States Parties that support or carry out research. Note: 61 States Parties replied to Question 27.1 What was the main focus of the research? (Multiple responses are permitted) 23. The complexity of research in this area underlines the importance of cooperation among States Parties, due to the advantages generated in terms of anti-doping objectives. The Convention supports the exchange of research results (within the limits of relevant national and international rules), and hopes to thus improve the effectiveness and quality of collaboration in anti-doping research. However, this remains difficult in certain States Parties: of the 60 States Parties that carry out or support research, only one third (23 States Parties) share their results with peers or the World Anti-Doping Agency. There are 14 States Parties who share their research results to a limited degree.

12 State Party: Albania Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

13 State Party: Algeria Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

14 State Party: Andorra Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

15 State Party: Argentina Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

16 State Party: Australia Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

17 State Party: Austria Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

18 State Party: Bahamas Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

19 State Party: Bahrain Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

20 State Party: Barbados Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

21 State Party: Belgium Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

22 State Party: Belize Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

23 State Party: Bhutan Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

24 State Party: Bosnia and Herzegovina Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

25 State Party: Botswana Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

26 State Party: Brazil Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

27 State Party: Bulgaria Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

28 State Party: Cambodia Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

29 State Party: Cameroon Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

30 State Party: Canada Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

31 State Party: Chile Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

32 State Party: China Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

33 State Party: Colombia Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

34 State Party: Congo (Democratic Republic of) Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

35 State Party: Costa Rica Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

36 State Party: Côte d Ivoire Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

37 State Party: Croatia Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

38 State Party: Cuba Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

39 State Party: Cyprus Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

40 State Party: Czech Republic Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

41 State Party: Denmark Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

42 State Party: Dominica Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

43 State Party: Dominican Republic Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

44 State Party: Ecuador Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

45 State Party: Egypt Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

46 State Party: El Salvador Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

47 State Party: Eritrea Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

48 State Party: Estonia Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

49 State Party: Ethiopia Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

50 State Party: Finland Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

51 State Party: France Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

52 State Party: Gambia Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

53 State Party: Georgia Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

54 State Party: Germany Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

55 State Party: Grenada Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

56 State Party: Guatemala Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

57 State Party: Guinea Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

58 State Party: Guyana Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

59 State Party: Hungary Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

60 State Party: Iceland Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

61 State Party: India Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

62 State Party: Indonesia Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

63 State Party: Iran (Islamic Republic of) Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

64 State Party: Iraq Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

65 State Party: Ireland Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

66 State Party: Israel Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

67 State Party: Italy Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

68 State Party: Jamaica Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

69 State Party: Japan Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

70 State Party: Jordan Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

71 State Party: Kazakhstan Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

72 State Party: Korea (Republic of) Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

73 State Party: Kuwait Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

74 State Party: Latvia Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

75 State Party: Lesotho Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

76 State Party: Lithuania Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

77 State Party: Luxembourg Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

78 State Party: Macedonia (The former Yugoslav Republic of) Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

79 State Party: Malaysia Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

80 State Party: Maldives Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

81 State Party: Mali Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

82 State Party: Malta Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

83 State Party: Marshall Islands Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

84 State Party: Mauritius Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

85 State Party: Mexico Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

86 State Party: Micronesia (Federated States of) Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

87 State Party: Monaco Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

88 State Party: Morocco Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

89 State Party: Mozambique Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

90 State Party: Namibia Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

91 State Party: Nepal Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

92 State Party: Netherlands Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

93 State Party: New Zealand Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

94 State Party: Nicaragua Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

95 State Party: Niger Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

96 State Party: Nigeria Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

97 State Party: Norway Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

98 State Party: Oman Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

99 State Party: Pakistan Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

100 State Party: Panama Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

101 State Party: Papua New Guinea Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

102 State Party: Paraguay Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

103 State Party: Peru Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

104 State Party: Philippines Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

105 State Party: Poland Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

106 State Party: Portugal Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

107 State Party: Qatar Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

108 State Party: Romania Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

109 State Party: Russian Federation Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

110 State Party: Saint Kitts and Nevis Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

111 State Party: Saint Lucia Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

112 State Party: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

113 State Party: Saudi Arabia Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

114 State Party: Senegal Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

115 State Party: Serbia Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

116 State Party: Seychelles Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

117 State Party: Singapore Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

118 State Party: Slovakia Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

119 State Party: Slovenia Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

120 State Party: South Africa Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

121 State Party: Spain Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

122 State Party: Sri Lanka Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

123 State Party: Suriname Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

124 State Party: Swaziland Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

125 State Party: Sweden Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

126 State Party: Switzerland Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

127 State Party: Syrian Arab Republic Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

128 State Party: Thailand Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

129 State Party: Togo Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

130 State Party: Trinidad and Tobago Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

131 State Party: Tunisia Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

132 State Party: Turkey Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

133 State Party: Ukraine Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

134 State Party: United Arab Emirates Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

135 State Party: United Kingdom Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

136 State Party: United States of America Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

137 State Party: Uruguay Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

138 State Party: Vanuatu Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

139 State Party: Venezuela Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

140 State Party: Viet Nam Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge

141 State Party: Zambia Monitoring Report Figure 1: Question Response Statictics Figure 2: Overall Gauge